Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 02:18:43 +0100
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 05:55:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
+ return buf[0] | (buf[1] << 8);
return get_unaligned_le16(buf);
And the point of that would be?
Perhaps better code generation?
FWIW, I wonder how they really compare on misaligned and whether it would
make sense for gcc to try and generate a single load on targets that are
known to allow that...
Hell knows; I still find explicit variant more readable in this case and
AFAICS it's not a critical path...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- References:
- [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Al Viro
- Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Harvey Harrison
- Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Al Viro
- Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- From: Linus Torvalds
- [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Remove all users of cpu_to_{le|be}{16|32|64}p
- Next by Date: Re: IRQ affinities
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
